You are on page 1of 3

Once asked What is the Law?

one can never really grasped the very meaning of what we say Law for it is a concept that is very broad. One can just truly define what is the law is one is knowledgeable of the very concept of law. Ordinary people may know what it is about but to fully explain what the law really is seems to be a hard a task. People under a system or a society in any age could know what the law is but to understand it requires a larger scale of wisdom. To have a better understanding of its concepts, one must study it. Given that almost all could give their own definition of what the law is, in the course then of this discussion, Aristotles definition of the law shall be taken.

What is the Law? According to the philosopher, Aquinas, Law is "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated. To thoroughly explain this definition given by Aquinas, it shall be explained in four parts namely a) An ordinance or reason, b) common good, c) authority, d) Promulgation. a) An ordinance of reason

b) Common Good The purpose of the law is to promote the well being of people or the goodness of people. Thomas Hobbes, in his philosophy, says that we agree to have a contract to govern our well being. This means that is actually concerned to the whole of the community. A law in its very sense is holistic. The law is made for man to cope up through the interests of the common good. It goes with the concept that man is under a law that safeguards the interests of ALL who are under its ruling.

c) Authority ...made by him who has the care of law means that the law is enacted or made or created by a sovereign ruler or a body. A ruler, may it be one person or a body is what we call the authority. How then can one be in authority? If one has the knowledge of what, who, and why he is governing. A ruler, or someone in authority has the responsibility to give appropriate sanctions to every violation done by any individual per se. A ruler then punishes someone who doesnt abide by the law. Why does he give punishments or sanctions? Basically because the care of the community is entrusted to the ruler. This means that he gives punishment to whoever that does not follow primarily because it concerns the community, the benefit of the many under one society. It is utilitarian in the sense that one should act by thinking first of the consequences of his action and the level of happiness of others that will bring about by his actions. It shall be subjected under the concern of a maximum number of people.

d) Promulgation Promulgation in its strict sense means that a law must be made public. This means that it is the act of formally proclaiming or declaring a new statutory or administrative law after its enactment. Formally

proclaiming or declaring does not simply imply that it must be printed on black and white only and keep a copy of it. It entails information dissemination. This explains that a law can never be a law if not disseminated properly. This part actually challenges the concept of ignorance of the law excuses no one because in some or most of the cases of people who do not mean to violate rules and regulations are given sanctions even though they do not have proper knowledge of the rules and regulations being implemented. This is not to be used as an excuse by knowledgeable people who wants to be stripped off of their responsibility brought about by their negligence. What it wants to point out is that people in cases like living as hermits and tries to be in the city for the first time and is equipped by little knowledge only and is a victim of poor information dissemination, are they actually excused? At some point yes, because going back to the definition of promulgation, it must be made public, it must be known. In this case, the violator is at the same the victim. The four types of law are also discussed namely: a) Eternal Law Eternal law governs the universe according to divine reason. It establishes an objective order to physical world and reality to the moral world. It is in what we call divine command ethics which states that the moral laws that we have when it is instated in its divine command it is supreme, ultimate, and unchangeable. b) Divine Law It is Gods law revealed thru the scriptures. It is basically the Ten Commandments. Divine law directs the human being towards the achievement of its supernatural purpose and everything we ought to know in finding and attaining salvation. c) Natural Law A bridge between Natural Law and Human Law and the order of things. It focuses on distinguishing good from evil that is innate in man through what we term as conscience. It is a rational persons participation in Eternal Law. It concerns on the everyday activity of man. It makes man decide whether to do an action or not and distinguishing that action from good or bad. It has three points: 1) it is always accessible to us by human reason. It addresses our reasoning. 2) it directs us human beings in the achievement of our natural purposes (i.e biological life, reproduction, knowledge, social living, and rational conduct) 3) it is always descriptive and normative. It is descriptive in the sense that it is statement, question, or theory about how things actually are and not what things are ought to be. It is normative in the sense that is a statement, question, or theory on how things should be. d) Human Law These are laws made by us human beings. It has the purpose of leading us to virtue and are somehow derived from natural law. Accordingly, Austin stated that the law is an order backed by threat with corresponding sanction for non-compliance. The law is always sovereign, ultimate, or supreme. It is a command theory and it is Divine and Eternal. But according to H.L. Hart, law is a matter of rules of various kinds. It comes with four fundamental questions, What exactly is the Law? Are all legally valid morally accepted? What is the legal system? and What is the rule of Law?

In the discussion of separation of legal and moral orders Ronald Myles Dworkin, an American Philosopher, questioned, is the law and morality separated in which case distinct with one another? It is now what we call as separation theory whereas it is stated that law and morality are very distinct and the context of the law is always how the system should be while morality speaks about what is right and what is wrong. Law is a system whereas morality is about good and bad actions. There is the difference between law and morality. But in supreme courts or the legal parlance for example, decisions cling to morality. On the other hand, not all legal are moral and not all moral are legal. Morality is about the norm of the society. ---------------------The unending discussions on the relationship of morality and law are still a hot dish on the table. Is it also true to say that not all legal are moral but all morals are worth legalizing? Still, the conflict between these two different concepts is not easy to reconcile. With the little knowledge that I have with me, I stand for reason. I believe that not all moral are legal and not all legal are moral. This concept that I believe in seem to be not taken into consideration by people who only thinks that only one side is better. With what we say that all men are created equal, then all must be given equal treatment. Discussion on what really is just and equal is but another issue. What Im trying to point out here is that people who are only subjected to the conditions of morality or those that are pre judged because of an accusation brought about by a violation of what is moral is not given the equality that people are trying to make other people understand. In my opinion, in cases like rape, murder, and the like are cases that are known to be rampant in our country are sometimes given biases. Why? Because victims are given special treatment while the accused are pre-judged first and foremost by the society even before trial. An accused always looks bad or evil in the eyes of the society. That is one fact in our country that I condemn. Filipinos for example talks about what is moral and what good should be done but we tend to judge without knowing the whole story. Is that acting according to what is moral? The law is made to protect the well being of the people, hence, everyone must be given the equal protection given by law. Both accused and victims must be heard. Everyone deserves due process of law- the very thing that the bill of rights tries to protect. It is stated in Article II Section 14 of the Bill of rights that ... (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy trial, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. And it is in this clause that everyone is given the RIGHT to be protected may it be accused or the victim. Although morality is a part of every individual, law must be separated by it. It may come handy that sometimes, in some cases for that matter, they go together but NOT AT ALL TIMES. The law, especially in my country- how it works, how it is implemented justly, what is really its purpose, is it really just, is it really protecting the welfare of people like how it is supposed to be, are questions in my mind that are yet to be answered. There is still more to understand.